PATRICIA ANN JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Patricia Jackson appealed the revocation of her probation for aggravated battery, challenging the admission of a 911 tape and victim statement as hearsay and violating Crawford v. Washington. The Fourth District affirmed the revocation, holding that the 911 tape constituted an excited utterance and was non-testimonial, and that Crawford does not apply in probation revocation proceedings.
The 911 tape was properly admitted as an excited utterance and not hearsay. The 911 tape described events as they were actually happening and was neither testimonial nor violative of Crawford. Crawford does not apply in probation revocation proceedings, although the written statement would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding.
[1] A 911 tape describing events as they were happening is not testimonial and does not violate Crawford v. …
[2] A 911 tape may be admissible in a probation revocation proceeding as an excited utterance.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Crawford is inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings; however, were this the criminal proceeding on the incident and not a violation of probation, the written statement would not be admissible under Crawford.”
Establishes the core holding that Crawford does not apply in probation revocation but would in criminal proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was on probation for aggravated battery. She was alleged to have violated probation by ramming her fiancé's vehicle multiple times and hitting…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We affirm an order revoking and terminating Jackson’s probation. Jackson, on probation for aggravated battery, was violated for an incident in which her fiancé, the victim, called 911 for help. He told the dispatcher and, later, the responding officer, that Jackson, apparently intoxicated, had rammed his vehicle with hers, more than once, and had hit him in the mouth. The victim did not testify. The evidence included admission of a tape of the 911 call from the victim and a written victim statement given to the police.
The issues on appeal are whether the trial court should have excluded the 911 tape as hearsay and whether it and the written statement are barred by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Initially, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the 911 tape was an excited utterance, and not hearsay. Further, the 911 tape described events as they were actually happening and was neither testimonial, nor violative of Crawford in any circumstance. Davis v. Washington, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006).
We agree with both the First and Fifth Districts that Crawford is inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings; however, were this the criminal proceeding on the incident and not a violation of probation, the written statement would not be admissible under Crawford.
In Russell v. State, 920 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), the reviewing court affirmed revocation of the defendant’s probation based upon the victim’s hearsay and a police officer’s testimony. The Russell court looked to two federal circuits for guidance and recognized that a defendant is not entitled to the “full panoply of rights due a defendant in criminal proceedings.” Id. at 685 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)).
Similarly, in Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), revocation of a defendant’s community control was affirmed and the question certified as to whether the testimonial hearsay rule in Crawford applied in community control and/or probation revocation proceedings. There, the admitted evidence was in a business record of an independent laboratory setting forth the results of drug tests. In Peters, the court recognized that Crawford does not apply in community control revocation proceedings, as “evidence which may not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial would be admissible in probation or parole revocation proceedings.” Id. at 626 (quoting Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 500 (Fla.1974)).
Therefore, the order and sentence are affirmed, and we certify to the supreme court the same Crawford issue certified in Peters: Whether the Crawford hearsay rule applies in community control and probation revocation proceedings.
POLEN, J., concurs.
FARMER, J., concurs in result and certified question only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcher v. State, 946 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…e Florida Supreme Court the question whether the testimonial hearsay rule in Crawford applied in community control and/or probation revocation proceedings. Expressing agreement with Russell and Peters, the Fourth District Court, in Jackson v. State, 931 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), similarly held that Crawford is inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings and certified the same question as was certified in Peters. Wilcher acknowledges that the cases we have cited are against him and lead to…
-
Jackson v. State, 953 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…gation of Crawford v. Washington. We disagree and affirm. This court recently joined the First and Fifth District Courts of Appeal in holding that Crawford does not apply in community control and probation revocation proceedings. Jackson v. State, 931 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (certifying the issue to the Supreme Court of Florida). As we did in Jackson, we certify the question to the Supreme Court of Florida: DOES THE “TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY” RULE SET FORTH IN CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36, 1…
-
Hawthorne v. State, 953 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ear in court. Aligning ourselves with our sister courts that have considered the issue, we hold that Crawford does not apply in community supervision revocation proceedings. See Wilcher v. State, 946 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Jackson v. State, 931 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 924 So. 2d 809 (Fla.2006). Along with the First, Fourth, and Fifth districts, however, we certify the following question to the supreme court: DOES THE “TESTIMONIA…
Authorities Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006)
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Russell v. State, 920 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)